The best info I can find says the rule can be found in whatever style sheet you are required to follow, and style sheets differ.

The problem often can be solved by practicing avoidance. When you're riding in the car that belongs to Charles and discussing the pay raise granted to the boss, you might get a whiff of the exhaust from the engine of the bus, and so on.

Paul, there have been some spirited discussions about that on this board. I confess that, until this board, I always wrote "boss'" or "Charles'" for possessive. I found that grammar sources varied on that and often said it could be either way.

Since this board, however, my mind (and writing) has changed. The fact that convinced me was that you say "bosses paper", so it should be "boss's paper." Now, I always add apostrophe "s" to be consistent.

There has been much (sprited) discussion about this and I will say only that I agree with Jerry absolutely.

I would add just two things.

Plurals of words ending in "s" are apostrophised in exactly the same way as other plurals (so the apostrophe is situated after the final "s")

Thus One boss's office; several bosses' offices.

Secondly, words ending in "s sounded vowel s" such as circus, Jesus, Xerses are often apostrophised as if they were plurals. Thus the Circus' takings; Jesus' Disciples; Xerses' conquests. However, it is not considered incorrect to use conventional apostrophisation - circus's; Jesus's; Xerses's.

The problem with the conventional apostrophisation of such words is simply one of pronunciation so I submit that the use of the "apostrophe after" style is better reserved for spoken English.

In the USA the misuse of the "plural" apostropisation form is becoming so common that some US style books now accept it as correct. Since it can create ambiguity, I feel this is to be deplored.

The average American has fewer than two legs, speaks more than one language and has 1.4 children.

Now, when you find him or her...

My research has established that there is a small majority of Americans who use the correct way of apostrophising words ending in "s" (boss's; James's; Charles's) although there seems to be a move to the incorrect and unecessary "pural" formation for such possessive singulars (boss'; Charles'; James') when they are written. However, even when this form is used in writing, the possessive seems still to be pronounced (bossiz; Jamesiz; Charlesiz) as if it were apostrophised correctly.

There are many threads here that have addressed apostrophes, but this one is probably the most relevant to your question.

My daughter, a Yale graduate and a law student at the University of Chicago (I say this only to let you know that she is fairly intelligent), was shocked that her professor took off points for "Williams'." Thus, I asked the question on this board, and you see the answers. My feeling is that we are a bit more flexible here in the states about the use of apostrophes. Most, though not all, grammar sources say either way is acceptable, and, indeed, that's what my editor said as well.

However, as you can see by my posts, I have become inflexible and now will only use "Williams's."

I don't want to stir it up again, but (depending on the full context) I might have used the Williams case, no apostrophe at all! I'm not sure it is a possessive -- after all we might talk about the body-in-the-freezer case, so I'd contend the use is adjectival and not possessive.

Of course, if it was a briefcase belonging to Mr and Mrs Williams, then it would be the Williams's case, and indeed if, as a lawyer, I asked someone else to take on the Williams's (sic) case, then they'd be reponsible for "the Williams case".

Did I use it wrong? I looked it up and the third definition is "therefore" or "consequently", with the sentence: "Thus it was necessary for me to resign."

quote:I'd contend the use is adjectival and not possessive

First, I am sure it was a legal case and not a brief case. Secondly, Paul, therein lies my problem with apostrophes, now that I have some of my misuses cleared up (from former threads, I was clearly an apostrophe addict! Thankfully, our arnie provided intensive tutoring.) However, now I still get confused over the adjective question. I believe it was Richard who said to put it in the form of "it is the case of Williams." If I try that method, it would need an apostrophe, I believe. The case belongs to Williams.

Did I use it wrong? I looked it up and the third definition is "therefore" or "consequently", with the sentence: "Thus it was necessary for me to resign."

Not as far as I'm concerned. I'd have just as happily used "thus" as "therefore".

quote:

quote:I'd contend the use is adjectival and not possessive

First, I am sure it was a legal case and not a brief case. Secondly, Paul, therein lies my problem with apostrophes, now that I have some of my misuses cleared up (from former threads, I was clearly an apostrophe addict! Thankfully, our arnie provided intensive tutoring.) However, now I still get confused over the adjective question. I believe it was Richard who said to put it in the form of "it is the case of Williams." If I try that method, it would need an apostrophe, I believe. The case belongs to Williams.

Actually the "body-in-the-freezer" test is as good a way as any to test for the need. Can you substitute something else that is obviously adjectival and not possessive ? If you can then I'd contend that you could leave the apostrophe out. "The Williams Case" is exactly what I'd write just as I'd write "the Johnson Case" or "the Smith Case".Only if the context made it absolutely clear that I wanted the possessive would I include it. That is, if I wanted to say something like "the Smiths' case is rather weak, I'd rule in favour of the Johnsons. or "The Williamses' case is rather weak, I'd rule in favour of the Smiths".But remember I've always been one of the board's advocates of adjectival usage.

Sports Car is a good test. It's clearly not the car of the sport (which would need the possessive), so it must be a car of type sports (which makes sport adjectival).

Is it the case of the Williams, or a case of type Williams? Moot, I'd say, but as it's being used as an example case in law teaching, I'd tend towards the latter.

Electrician's screwdriver is arguably electricians screwdriver by the above argument, but I still apostrophise that, so I'm not very consistent. (But maybe that's because I feel it's of type electrician's -- I don't think I want to think about the possessive form being used adjectivally!)

I have always felt the apostrophe in "taco's" was wrong, but my husband says that because it is a Spanish word, you can't just add an "s" because that makes a new word entirely. Can someone help me with this one?

It's just one more example of the strange belief that so many people seem to have that is is necessary to insert an apostrophe to make the plural of words ending with a vowel.

As has been mentioned previously, in England we often call this the "Greengrocers' apostrophe" in view of the propensity for constructions such as "lettuce's"; "apple's"; tomato's" to appear on the price labels of fruit and vegetable stalls.

By the way, why do so the names of so many fruits and vegetables end in a vowel?

In the World Travel Dictionary (published by Columbus and, I blush to say, originally created by me), there is a large list of US/UK translations. The latest revision has enlarged the list but, as I was not commissioned to update the work, I can't now vouch for its accuracy.

Crumpet is one entry - but did you know that there is no such thing as an English Muffin in England?

I was suggesting that there should be no apostrophe in Williams case because Williams is being used as an adjective, not a possessive. To test this, I suggested replacing Williams with something which doesn't look like a possessive, such as the-body-in-the-freezer.

Would we say the-body-in-the-freezer case (adjectival use) or the body-in-the-freezer's case (possessive use)? I contend that we'd say the first, and thus Williams case is acceptable.

When I ordered an English muffin in the USA I got something that I had never experienced in England. It is a small spongy cake made with eggs and baking powder. They are becoming available in the UK but as a US import.

The US "English Muffin" It is nothing like a crumpet (unknown in the USA in either sense of the word)

Real English muffins are a light, flat, circular, spongy cake, usually toasted and buttered and sometimes eaten with jam (what you call "jelly" in the US).

The link Richard gave has excellent pictures on it. The first item, is what we , in the U.S. call an English Muffin. It is light and airy and has nooks and crannys to catch the melted butter after you toast it. We also use them to make individual "muffin pizzas", topping them with sauce, cheese, and pepperoni and baking them for 10 minutes. Kids love this and I always let them create their own with different toppings.

The next item on the page is a Muffin. Usually quite heavy and flavored with fruit. They are best split with a little butter on them. The best part of a muffin is the top though that bakes with a bit of crunchiness to it. I remember an old episode of "Seinfeld" where Elaine was baking whole muffins and attempting to discard the "stubs" so she only had to sell the muffin tops, as no one wanted the bottoms!

The third item, the Crumpets, are a mystery to me. Perhaps one of you Brits could expound on their wonder!

English Muffin – A round (about 3 inches in diameter) muffin that is made from soft yeast dough and baked on a griddle.

History: The origin of the English Muffin can be dated back to the 10th century in Wales. A yeast-leavened cake called Bara Maen was baked on hot stones in 10th century Wales. A similar cake or muffin baked on hot griddles was popular in 19th century England, where the hot, fresh muffins were peddled door to door by the "muffin man.” The prominence of the muffin men in English society even became a popular children’s nursery rhyme and song, “Have you seen the muffin man, the muffin man, the muffin man? Have you seen the muffin man, that lives in Drury Lane?"

The word crumpet has three UK meanings, none of which are known in the USA.

The crumpet shown in the picture is a foodstuff. It is a circular falt cake of yeast mixture eaten toasted and buttered. It is not itself sweet and can thus be eaten with either sweet or savory toppings.Crumpets are primarily eaten in the winter although these days they can be bought throughout the year. They are quite delicious.

The second meaning, used only in the singular, means an attractive woman. For example, "...that's Fred's bit of crumpet..." It is slang and mildly offensive. If more than one woman is being referred to, the word remains singular as in the phrase, "...there was plenty of crumpet at the party..."

The final meaning is the head. Again it is slang and now almost archaic.

Because of the sexual connotations, non-UK users of the word should be careful when using the term and one of the most effective ways of avoiding sniggers from the assemblage, is simply to use the plural.

"...I would quite like some crumpets..." is unabiguous and will not be misunderstood. "...I would like some crumpet (or worse, a bit of crumpet)..." will create much mirth among the British present.

Richard, the first definition of "crumpet" is known in the U.S., though I agree the second two are not. In fact, recently my husband and I were in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, at a tea house that served crumpets.

quote:Originally posted by Graham Nice:Hair-dos is very common and doesn't need an apostrophe.

I disagree. While that spelling is common, I do think that an apostrophe would be of help.

"Hair-dos" looks as if it should rhyme with "floss." Were it to be spelled "hair-doos" or "hair-dooze" or something like that, this wouldn't be a problem but these options are, of course, not going to happen.

A careful rephrasing could be a solution, something along the lines of: "We can give you an up-do. And then we can give you another one!" but this doesn't seem likely either.

"Up-do's" and "hair-do's" seem to be the best, if not perfect, options.

And on an unrelated note, "up-do" is one of those words that doesn't seem to have an opposite. Has any woman on this board ever gone to a salon to get a "down-do"?

To be honest, I haven't heard of "up-do" either, Richard. It must be a southern Illinois type of hair-do. Now, I do know "highlights" and "lowlights." CJ, is an up-do when the woman has her hair done up on her head? Like a French twist or a bun or French braids pinned up? Ladies?

CJ, this may be the first time.....but I agree with you about "do's" versus "dos." Besides what you have said, many signs in Chicago are written in English and Spanish. "Up-dos" or "hair-dos" might confuse the Spanish speaking clients. I go for the apostrophe. After all, the style books say it is okay to use a non-possessive one when it confuses the context, like in p's and q's. This strikes me as similar.

It has been awhile since we've talked about...apostrophes! [Somehow "apostrophes" and "epicaricacy" seem to be the theme of this board. ]

The editorial of the NY Times today had an apostrophe error, though I never quite trust myself on these things. Let me throw it out to you experts. If in fact I am right, you will see from the context that it is rather ironic!

A Yale professor in charge of a Governance Institute was asked to resign because of financial misconduct. Here is what the NY Times says, "There has been much gnashing of teeth among corporate governance experts, who say this is simply another case of leaders' failing to lead by example."

Quote "...is simply another case of leaders' failing to lead by example...."

Correct, in my view, since I would suggest that "failing" is a gerund (a verb masquerading as a noun) and thus it is a failing that belongs to the leaders - "the leaders' failing".

The rule is a tricky one - easy enough if a pronoun is involved "...their failing..." but less easy when it's a noun. "...The leaders are failing..." needs no apostrophe since it is clearly a verb; "...the leaders' failing...", with the apostrophe, when it's a gerund.